B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber Crash Video

[Larry Dighera]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spirit_StealthBomber_CrashReport_ 198060-1.html
The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber,
February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by
water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report
issued Thursday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 6, 7:58*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spirit...
> The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber,
> February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by
> water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report
> issued Thursday.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18

"..in the end, the Air Force's report on the incident suggests the
entire accident could have been avoided..."

"..prior to the flight the aircraft's own systems had prompted the
crew to perform an air-data calibration.."

Pilot error?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 6, 7:58*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spirit...
>> The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber,
>> February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by
>> water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report
>> issued Thursday.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18
>
>"..in the end, the Air Force's report on the incident suggests the
>entire accident could have been avoided..."
>
>"..prior to the flight the aircraft's own systems had prompted the
>crew to perform an air-data calibration.."
>
>Pilot error?



The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
fractures to his spine.

The report points to the inaccurate readings as contributing
factors, adding that ineffective communication of critical
information about a technique used to remove moisture from the
sensors also contributed. It's possible that all the pilots had to
do to avert the accident was turn on the pitot heat prior to
performing air data calibrations. But the suggested technique was
not part of checklist procedures.


It sounds more like an incomplete checklist.

[Jack Mehoff[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spirit_StealthBomber_CrashReport_ 198060-1.html
> The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber,
> February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by
> water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report
> issued Thursday.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18

And the sound it first made when it impacted the runway??
CHAAAAAAAAA-CHING!!!

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 7, 12:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 6, 7:58*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >>http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spirit...
> >> The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber,
> >> February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by
> >> water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report
> >> issued Thursday.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18
>
> >"..in the end, the Air Force's report on the incident suggests the
> >entire accident could have been avoided..."
>
> >"..prior to the flight the aircraft's own systems had prompted the
> >crew to perform an air-data calibration.."
>
> >Pilot error?
>
> * * The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
> * * runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
> * * 75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
> * * injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
> * * fractures to his spine.
>
> * * The report points to the inaccurate readings as contributing
> * * factors, adding that ineffective communication of critical
> * * information about a technique used to remove moisture from the
> * * sensors also contributed. It's possible that all the pilots had to
> * * do to avert the accident was turn on the pitot heat prior to
> * * performing air data calibrations. But the suggested technique was
> * * not part of checklist procedures.
>
> It sounds more like an incomplete checklist. *- Hide quoted text -

At the 2:00 mark of the video you posted, it states...

"Major Ryan Link and Captain Justin Grief? were warned by master
caution light and flight controls systems caution 19 seconds after
brake release while on take-off roll...". It then goes on to say that
the warnings were rescinded after 6 seconds.

I guess they should add to checklist...

"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
that something is wrong, listen to it."

A few months ago, was about to go riding on power trip were top speed
on my VFR-800 could reach 155 mph. As I was leaving parking lot, I
heard a faint clicking noise. It could have been anything, but
discipline dictated that I check, so I did. I found a nice, fat, heavy-
duty staple embedded in the real wheel rubber. Fortunately, it was
embedded at an angle that left the tread useable, but still, it was
there. If anything had happened, I would have had no one to blame
myself. I'd be lying in the hospital (or dead) saying, "Yeah, I did
hear this slight clicking noise coming from somehwere but I ignored it
because I had done a check-out less than 18 hours prior..."

Those pilots had more than a clicking noise. They had a computer
saying, "Something is not right".

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Jun 7, 12:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 6, 7:58*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >>
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spiri
>> >>t...
>
>> >> The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit
>> >> bomber, February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam,
>> >> was caused by water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air
>> >> Combat report issued Thursday.
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18
>>
>> >"..in the end, the Air Force's report on the incident suggests the
>> >entire accident could have been avoided..."
>>
>> >"..prior to the flight the aircraft's own systems had prompted the
>> >crew to perform an air-data calibration.."
>>
>> >Pilot error?
>>
>> * * The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
>> * * runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
>> * * 75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
>> * * injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
>> * * fractures to his spine.
>>
>> * * The report points to the inaccurate readings as contributing
>> * * factors, adding that ineffective communication of critical
>> * * information about a technique used to remove moisture from the
>> * * sensors also contributed. It's possible that all the pilots had
>> to
>
>> * * do to avert the accident was turn on the pitot heat prior to
>> * * performing air data calibrations. But the suggested technique was
>> * * not part of checklist procedures.
>>
>> It sounds more like an incomplete checklist. *- Hide quoted text -
>
> At the 2:00 mark of the video you posted, it states...
>
> "Major Ryan Link and Captain Justin Grief? were warned by master
> caution light and flight controls systems caution 19 seconds after
> brake release while on take-off roll...". It then goes on to say that
> the warnings were rescinded after 6 seconds.
>
> I guess they should add to checklist...
>
> "Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
> that something is wrong, listen to it."
>
> A few months ago, was about to go riding on power trip were top speed
> on my VFR-800 could reach 155 mph. As I was leaving parking lot, I
> heard a faint clicking noise. It could have been anything, but
> discipline dictated that I check, so I did. I found a nice, fat,
> heavy- duty staple embedded in the real wheel rubber. Fortunately, it
> was embedded at an angle that left the tread useable, but still, it
> was there. If anything had happened, I would have had no one to blame
> myself. I'd be lying in the hospital (or dead) saying, "Yeah, I did
> hear this slight clicking noise coming from somehwere but I ignored it
> because I had done a check-out less than 18 hours prior..."
>
> Those pilots had more than a clicking noise. They had a computer
> saying, "Something is not right".


You don;'t know that. You know they got a master caution, but you don't
know anything about the master caution system or the system it was
warning of. You know nothing of the porcendures and training involved
either.



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 7, 12:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >On Jun 6, 7:58*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >>http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_B2Spirit...
>> >> The crash on takeoff of a 509th Air Wing, Air Force B-2 Spirit bomber,
>> >> February 23 operating at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, was caused by
>> >> water in the aircraft's sensors, according to an Air Combat report
>> >> issued Thursday.
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18
>>
>> >"..in the end, the Air Force's report on the incident suggests the
>> >entire accident could have been avoided..."
>>
>> >"..prior to the flight the aircraft's own systems had prompted the
>> >crew to perform an air-data calibration.."
>>
>> >Pilot error?
>>
>> * * The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
>> * * runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
>> * * 75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
>> * * injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
>> * * fractures to his spine.
>>
>> * * The report points to the inaccurate readings as contributing
>> * * factors, adding that ineffective communication of critical
>> * * information about a technique used to remove moisture from the
>> * * sensors also contributed. It's possible that all the pilots had to
>> * * do to avert the accident was turn on the pitot heat prior to
>> * * performing air data calibrations. But the suggested technique was
>> * * not part of checklist procedures.
>>
>> It sounds more like an incomplete checklist. *- Hide quoted text -
>
>At the 2:00 mark of the video you posted, it states...
>
>"Major Ryan Link and Captain Justin Grief? were warned by master
>caution light and flight controls systems caution 19 seconds after
>brake release while on take-off roll...". It then goes on to say that
>the warnings were rescinded after 6 seconds.
>

A little after that it indicates that the ground crew was supposed to
know about using pitot heat before performing their system checks, but
that information wasn't provided to this particular ground crew.


>I guess they should add to checklist...
>
>"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
>that something is wrong, listen to it."
>

What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
computer warning?

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> > wrote in
> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>
> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
> computer warning?

Abort takeoff?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:61c1a6af-039c-4061-
:

> On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> > wrote in
>> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
>> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>>
>> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
>> computer warning?
>
> Abort takeoff?
>

How would you know?



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> > wrote in
>> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
>> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>>
>> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
>> computer warning?
>
>Abort takeoff?
>

Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that warning
message?

It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
computer issued that warning.

Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?

[G Paleologopoulos]

Ï "Larry Dighera" > Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
.................................................. .
>>Abort takeoff?
>>
>
> Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that warning
> message?
>
> It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
> computer issued that warning.
>
> Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?


Well, an adequate length remained for a comfortable crash-and-burn with twin
ejections with major injuries.

[Peter Dohm]

"G Paleologopoulos" > wrote in message
news:1212872870.640246@athprx03...
>
> Ï "Larry Dighera" > Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
> ...
> ..................................................
>>>Abort takeoff?
>>>
>>
>> Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that warning
>> message?
>>
>> It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
>> computer issued that warning.
>>
>> Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?
>
>
> Well, an adequate length remained for a comfortable crash-and-burn with
> twin ejections with major injuries.
Twit!

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 7, 3:57*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> >> > wrote in
> >> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns you
> >> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>
> >> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
> >> computer warning?
>
> >Abort takeoff?
>
> Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that warning
> message? *
>
> It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
> computer issued that warning. *
>
> Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?

Hmm...that's a good question. Not being a pilot, I cannot say, but
from the video, the firestreak of the crash looks extremely long, even
for a 300,000lb+ aircraft. Also, it stated that IAS of 120mph was, in
fact, much less, so conservatively, we could say 110mph.

Not sure if that is slow enough, but again, that runway looks very
long.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:ed9fb806-990a-4a04-
:

> On Jun 7, 3:57*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns
you
>> >> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>>
>> >> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
>> >> computer warning?
>>
>> >Abort takeoff?
>>
>> Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that
warning
>> message? *
>>
>> It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
>> computer issued that warning. *
>>
>> Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?
>
> Hmm...that's a good question. Not being a pilot, I cannot say, but
> from the video, the firestreak of the crash looks extremely long, even
> for a 300,000lb+ aircraft. Also, it stated that IAS of 120mph was, in
> fact, much less, so conservatively, we could say 110mph.
>
> Not sure if that is slow enough, but again, that runway looks very
> long.
>


You have no idea what you're talking about. You're certainly not
qualified to comment on the decisions made by a B2 crew.



Bertie



Bertie

[DaveB[_2_]]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:51:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:ed9fb806-990a-4a04-
:
>
>> On Jun 7, 3:57*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>> >On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>>> >> > wrote in
>>> >> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns
>you
>>> >> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>>>
>>> >> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of that
>>> >> computer warning?
>>>
>>> >Abort takeoff?
>>>
>>> Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that
>warning
>>> message? *
>>>
>>> It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
>>> computer issued that warning. *
>>>
>>> Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?
>>
>> Hmm...that's a good question. Not being a pilot, I cannot say, but
>> from the video, the firestreak of the crash looks extremely long, even
>> for a 300,000lb+ aircraft. Also, it stated that IAS of 120mph was, in
>> fact, much less, so conservatively, we could say 110mph.
>>
>> Not sure if that is slow enough, but again, that runway looks very
>> long.
>>
>
>
>You have no idea what you're talking about. You're certainly not
>qualified to comment on the decisions made by a B2 crew.
>
>
>
>Bertie
>
>
>
>Bertie
>
and I suppose you are?
Daveb

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"DaveB" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:51:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>You have no idea what you're talking about. You're certainly not
>>qualified to comment on the decisions made by a B2 crew.
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>>
> and I suppose you are?


He's a legend in his own mind.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

(DaveB) wrote in news:484b31b1.10455013
@news.dslextreme.com:

> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:51:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:ed9fb806-990a-
4a04-
:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 3:57*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>>>> > wrote in
>>>> <61c1a6af-039c-4061-8d8a-97de48696...
@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>
>>>> >On Jun 7, 12:02*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
>>>> >> > wrote in
>>>> >> >"Step 38...when flying $1.4 billion aircraft and computer warns
>>you
>>>> >> >that something is wrong, listen to it."
>>>>
>>>> >> What you suggest that the pilots may have done as a result of
that
>>>> >> computer warning?
>>>>
>>>> >Abort takeoff?
>>>>
>>>> Is that the appropriate response when the computer issues that
>>warning
>>>> message? *
>>>>
>>>> It appears that they were just about to leave the runway when the
>>>> computer issued that warning. *
>>>>
>>>> Did adequate runway remain to abort the takeoff ?
>>>
>>> Hmm...that's a good question. Not being a pilot, I cannot say, but
>>> from the video, the firestreak of the crash looks extremely long,
even
>>> for a 300,000lb+ aircraft. Also, it stated that IAS of 120mph was,
in
>>> fact, much less, so conservatively, we could say 110mph.
>>>
>>> Not sure if that is slow enough, but again, that runway looks very
>>> long.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You have no idea what you're talking about. You're certainly not
>>qualified to comment on the decisions made by a B2 crew.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>>
> and I suppose you are?
> Daveb
>

Nope. Never flew one. I know enough to know he's not qualified to say
why Mary Jane fell off her tricycle, though.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:IcH2k.4557$t07.4251
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "DaveB" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:51:40 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You have no idea what you're talking about. You're certainly not
>>>qualified to comment on the decisions made by a B2 crew.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>>
>> and I suppose you are?
>
>
> He's a legend in his own mind.
>

As well as on Borneo and also in Manhattan where I have broken many three
card trick hustlers



Bertie
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope. Never flew one. I know enough to know he's not qualified to say
> why Mary Jane fell off her tricycle, though.
>
>

I would seriously doubt it, unless you caused it. But then you would lie
about it.

[Big John]

----clip----

The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
fractures to his spine.


************************************************** *******

I ejected in 1968 and got a compression fracture. Seat was one of the
original seats first used in Jets. It used a 37 mm shell for energy
and the 'g' forces peaked just after firing with the high 'G' causing
the back damage.

Current seats have longer application of thrust and peak 'G' on pilot
is much less (smooth ride).

I'm surprised one of the pilots got a compression fracture unless it
was ground contact.

Big John

[Clark[_2_]]

Most SOPs I am familiar with for heavy aircraft tell you to keep
flying if a Master Caution illuminates on takeoff AFTER 80-100 knots.
After 80-100 knots, hi speed aborts are done for Fires, Engine
Failures, Windshear and if the PIC believes the airplane will not
fly.
This crew had no idications to warrant an abort. After a certain
threshold they are biased to continue and that is what they did,
similar to Comair 5191. Blaming the pilots does not "un-crash" this
aircraft. There are system issues to be corrected here. I'm glad they
survived.
For a very good read on time compressed decision making and concurrent
task management, get a copy of "The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking
Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents" by Dismukes, Berman
and Loukopoulos
http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Airline-Accidents/dp/0754649652

Fly Smart
Kent
www.signalcharlie.net

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Jun 8, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
> Most SOPs I am familiar with for heavy aircraft tell you to keep
> flying if a Master Caution illuminates on takeoff AFTER 80-100 knots.
> After 80-100 knots, hi speed aborts are done for Fires, Engine
> Failures, Windshear and if the PIC believes the airplane will not
> fly.

Hmm....I think this sends the wrong signal to aspiring pilots (no pun
intended).

When I was reading the Risk Management section of my Jeppesen book, it
specifically states that one of the major reasons that accidents
happens is that pilots choose to ignore the warning signs.

If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
(to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. But if
you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???

I am sure that if I were to go to my flight instructor, and tell him
that, from now on, if any warning lights come on in his sub-$400,000
aircraft, I will use my own judgement during an abortable take off to
decide whether the warning is serious enough to abort, he'd shriek.

> This crew had no idications to warrant an abort. After a certain
> threshold they are biased to continue and that is what they did,
> similar to Comair 5191. Blaming the pilots does not "un-crash" this
> aircraft. There are system issues to be corrected here. I'm glad they
> survived.

Blame has to be placed somewhere, or shared, right? If blame is not
placed, it starts to give the impression that no one is at fault, at
least not the pilots.

Let's look at it another way. Let us suppose that no warnings existed
at all in the B-2 Spirit, that everything looked normal right before
ejection. There would be a thorough investigation, meeting rooms
filled with technologists and top brass, and once the cause were
found, someone would suggest...

"How hard is it to add a warning light so that if moisture clogs the
system, the computer at least tells the pilots that something is
wrong? Can you do that?" They engineers would probably say yes.
"Would you pilots find that useful?" Again, the pilots would probably
say yes.

> For a very good read on time compressed decision making and concurrent
> task management, get a copy of "The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking
> Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents" by Dismukes, Berman
> and Loukopouloshttp://www.amazon.com/Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Airline-Accidents/d...
>
> Fly Smart

By managing risk better?

One way to look at is...if they had aborted, the plane would still be
here, and some engineer would have figured out the error in true vs
indicated speed, and noted that pilots would have attempted rotation
at a speed that might have resulted in a crash, and pilots would have
been lauded for their attitude toward risk management...in the $1.4
billion aircraft.

Also, given that it's a B-2, and not a $40,000 Tomahawk, I would think
one would have a slightly higher expectation of pilot's attitude
toward risk management...or not.

If it seems that I am nit-picking at this topic, I am. The more I
read, the more I am discovering that vast majority of crashes, if one
looks only at the facts, has to do with some erroneous decision that
human made somewhere, not the machine itself. A year ago, before I
started all this, I would have expected it to be entirely the other
way around, the idea being that, the pilot would know that if they do
something really stupid, death is a possibility. Some of the errors
that pilots make are....ahem...plane silly.

Making mistakes is ok, as no one is perfect. The problem, I think,
becomes systemic when the community as a whole develops tendency to
reject blame. That is what I, a student pilot, see each time I open a
magazine, or read online material.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:JHO2k.4739$t07.4088
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Nope. Never flew one. I know enough to know he's not qualified to say
>> why Mary Jane fell off her tricycle, though.
>>
>>
>
> I would seriously doubt it, unless you caused it. But then you would lie
> about it.
>
>
>

Oh no! The k00k is caling me a liar again! My rep!

Bwawahwhahwhahwhahhahhahhahha!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Clark > wrote in
:

> Most SOPs I am familiar with for heavy aircraft tell you to keep
> flying if a Master Caution illuminates on takeoff AFTER 80-100 knots.
> After 80-100 knots, hi speed aborts are done for Fires, Engine
> Failures, Windshear and if the PIC believes the airplane will not
> fly.
> This crew had no idications to warrant an abort. After a certain
> threshold they are biased to continue and that is what they did,
> similar to Comair 5191. Blaming the pilots does not "un-crash" this
> aircraft. There are system issues to be corrected here. I'm glad they
> survived.

Exactly, though you're whislting in the wind here trying to explain that to
them.. However, we usually have the proviso attached to all briefs that
we'll still abandon up to V1 for aything that makes the airplane unflyable.
Instrument failure ins't that big a dal if you'r VMC in most airplanes, but
I have no idea how reliant the flight control systems in that thing are on
the sensors. My guess would be that the reliance would be considerable,
though. This is one in which a lot of clear answers wont be forthcoming for
some considerable time, though. I can't imagine the USAF would want any
weaknesses that aircraft has discussed in public. You might see exactly
what happened on the discovery channel in 2058.

> For a very good read on time compressed decision making and concurrent
> task management, get a copy of "The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking
> Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents" by Dismukes, Berman
> and Loukopoulos
> http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Airline-Accidents/dp/
> 0754649652

Hmmm, thnk i might get that..
Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Jun 8, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
>> Most SOPs I am familiar with for heavy aircraft tell you to keep
>> flying if a Master Caution illuminates on takeoff AFTER 80-100 knots.
>> After 80-100 knots, hi speed aborts are done for Fires, Engine
>> Failures, Windshear and if the PIC believes the airplane will not
>> fly.
>
> Hmm....I think this sends the wrong signal to aspiring pilots (no pun
> intended).
>
> When I was reading the Risk Management section of my Jeppesen book, it
> specifically states that one of the major reasons that accidents
> happens is that pilots choose to ignore the warning signs.
>
> If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
> (to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. But if
> you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
> takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???
>
> I am sure that if I were to go to my flight instructor, and tell him
> that, from now on, if any warning lights come on in his sub-$400,000
> aircraft, I will use my own judgement during an abortable take off to
> decide whether the warning is serious enough to abort, he'd shriek.
>
>> This crew had no idications to warrant an abort. After a certain
>> threshold they are biased to continue and that is what they did,
>> similar to Comair 5191. Blaming the pilots does not "un-crash" this
>> aircraft. There are system issues to be corrected here. I'm glad they
>> survived.
>
> Blame has to be placed somewhere, or shared, right? If blame is not
> placed, it starts to give the impression that no one is at fault, at
> least not the pilots.
>
> Let's look at it another way. Let us suppose that no warnings existed
> at all in the B-2 Spirit, that everything looked normal right before
> ejection. There would be a thorough investigation, meeting rooms
> filled with technologists and top brass, and once the cause were
> found, someone would suggest...
>
> "How hard is it to add a warning light so that if moisture clogs the
> system, the computer at least tells the pilots that something is
> wrong? Can you do that?" They engineers would probably say yes.
> "Would you pilots find that useful?" Again, the pilots would probably
> say yes.
>
>> For a very good read on time compressed decision making and
>> concurrent task management, get a copy of "The Limits of Expertise:
>> Rethinking Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents" by
>> Dismukes, Berman and
>> Loukopouloshttp://www.amazon.com/Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Airline-
A
> ccidents/d...
>>
>> Fly Smart
>
> By managing risk better?
>
> One way to look at is...if they had aborted, the plane would still be
> here,

Thats the point, you do not know that, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:14:15 -0500, Big John >
wrote in >:

>----clip----
>
> The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
> runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
> 75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
> injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
> fractures to his spine.
>
>
>************************************************** *******
>
>I ejected in 1968 and got a compression fracture.

I'm sorry to hear that. What was the cause of your decision to eject?

>Seat was one of the
>original seats first used in Jets. It used a 37 mm shell for energy
>and the 'g' forces peaked just after firing with the high 'G' causing
>the back damage.
>
>Current seats have longer application of thrust and peak 'G' on pilot
>is much less (smooth ride).
>
>I'm surprised one of the pilots got a compression fracture unless it
>was ground contact.
>
>Big John

It would seem, that being strapped into the seat could result in just
that sort of injury on landing if the pilot doesn't have the option of
jettisoning the seat before landing.

Perhaps the injured pilot's age and weight figured into the cause of
his injury.

Does anyone wear those thick-soled wedgies with the pneumatic void in
the soles to cushion impact anymore?

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The current ACES II seats are zero/zero (will get a good chute with zero
forward velocity and zero altitude). It is generally felt that the parachute
landing and wrong body position cause the compression fractures, not the
ejection itself. The seat senses the actual altitude and attitude, and this
determines when it separates, although manual separation is also an option.

You're not supposed to land on your feet, regardless.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:04:35 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>The current ACES II seats are zero/zero (will get a good chute with zero
>forward velocity and zero altitude).

What more could a guy ask? Interesting information.

>It is generally felt that the parachute landing and wrong body position
>cause the compression fractures, not the ejection itself.

I would think the injured pilot might be able to provide some input
about that. Have you ever examined any of the pilots who sustained
these types of injuries? But, I would expect that there have already
been some studies done on the issue.

Are the fractures generally in the nature of cracks, or are there
incidences of crushed bone fractures also? Wouldn't there be ruptured
disk injuries in addition to the fractures? I suppose it runs the
gamut. Of course, it still beats the alternative.

>The seat senses the actual altitude and attitude, and this
>determines when it separates, although manual separation is also an option.
>

So the seat separates from the 'chute at a programmed point. No sense
sizing the 'chute to carry the weight of the seat in addition to the
pilot.

>You're not supposed to land on your feet, regardless.
>

What are you supposed to land on?

I was taught to hit with my feet, knees bent, and roll to dissipate
some of the impact energy laterally, but fortunately, I've never found
it necessary to try it.

I have seen several skydivers make standup or running touchdowns, but
I would expect their 'chutes to be significantly different from those
issued by the military.


This sure looks like a lot of fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sLE-jeBOm0

[Viperdoc]

The round military chutes do not provide a lot of control, and at least in
the F-16 also deploy the survival kit as well as a fully inflated raft,
which trail below the pilot. This is a lot of weight, and there is a max
weight limit in flyers, mostly to insure the ejection seat will clear the
tail.

The chute is nowhere near as steerable as a square, so a good PLF is
necessary to avoid injury, and yes, I have seen at least one guy with a
compression fracture after an ejection. It still beats the alternatives. I
would not in any way classify it as fun.

[Big John]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:41:01 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:14:15 -0500, Big John >
>wrote in >:
>
>>----clip----
>>
>> The $1.4 billion aircraft crashed just off the left side of the
>> runway and exploded. It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed
>> 75,000 hours of loss-free service. Link and Grieve both suffered
>> injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression
>> fractures to his spine.
>>
>>
>>************************************************** *******
>>
>>I ejected in 1968 and got a compression fracture.
>
>I'm sorry to hear that. What was the cause of your decision to eject?
>
>>Seat was one of the
>>original seats first used in Jets. It used a 37 mm shell for energy
>>and the 'g' forces peaked just after firing with the high 'G' causing
>>the back damage.
>>
>>Current seats have longer application of thrust and peak 'G' on pilot
>>is much less (smooth ride).
>>
>>I'm surprised one of the pilots got a compression fracture unless it
>>was ground contact.
>>
>>Big John
>
>It would seem, that being strapped into the seat could result in just
>that sort of injury on landing if the pilot doesn't have the option of
>jettisoning the seat before landing.
>
>Perhaps the injured pilot's age and weight figured into the cause of
>his injury.
>
>Does anyone wear those thick-soled wedgies with the pneumatic void in
>the soles to cushion impact anymore?


*********************************************
Have told the story several times here on RAP.

Bottom line was no gas in a snow storm over
Greenland. Not hard to make a decision under those conditions.

Big John

[Big John]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:04:35 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>The current ACES II seats are zero/zero (will get a good chute with zero
>forward velocity and zero altitude). It is generally felt that the parachute
>landing and wrong body position cause the compression fractures, not the
>ejection itself. The seat senses the actual altitude and attitude, and this
>determines when it separates, although manual separation is also an option.
>
>You're not supposed to land on your feet, regardless.
>
*********************************

To add some comments about early ejections.

I had the Zero lanyard hooked up. One end was connected to seat and
other end to rip cord. Normally it was only connect under 5K on take
off and landing (low speed). If you used it at high altitude and high
speed it opened the chute immediately and you could blow some panels
in canopy and tear up some of teh shroud lines.

A few seconds after ejection the seat belt blew open and the butt
snapper(we called it) pushed me out of the seat. When I left the seat
the zero lanyard pulled the rip cord and chute opened and was a good
chute (no shroud lines over canopy, etc).

These were 24 Foot round chutes and there were four shroud lines (two
on each side toward the rear) that you cut with ur survival knife.
This changed the shape of the canopy and it picked up some forward
velocity. You could then do a little steering of this forward
velocity to help pick a landing spot.

I landed facing down wind like the book said and made a poor parachute
landing roll due to the poopy suit and other things I had on me.

On the way down I pulled the bottle in seat pack and the dingy
inflated and hung about 10 feet below me all the way done.

Was picked up by a Danish chopper about 3 1/2 hours after ejection and
taken to the air base where Doc examined me for injuries.

The Aces seats are wonderful and are Zero Zero. Quit a few have
ejected either on the ground or very low and survived. Some got some
injuries like a broken leg or arm but that is much better than burning
in the crash.

Hope some of the these comments help explain some of the discussions
that have been made on RAP.

Big John

[Big John]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote:

>On Jun 8, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
>> Most SOPs I am familiar with for heavy aircraft tell you to keep
>> flying if a Master Caution illuminates on takeoff AFTER 80-100 knots.
>> After 80-100 knots, hi speed aborts are done for Fires, Engine
>> Failures, Windshear and if the PIC believes the airplane will not
>> fly.
>
>Hmm....I think this sends the wrong signal to aspiring pilots (no pun
>intended).
>
>When I was reading the Risk Management section of my Jeppesen book, it
>specifically states that one of the major reasons that accidents
>happens is that pilots choose to ignore the warning signs.
>
>If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
>(to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. But if
>you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
>takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???
>
>I am sure that if I were to go to my flight instructor, and tell him
>that, from now on, if any warning lights come on in his sub-$400,000
>aircraft, I will use my own judgement during an abortable take off to
>decide whether the warning is serious enough to abort, he'd shriek.
>
>> This crew had no idications to warrant an abort. After a certain
>> threshold they are biased to continue and that is what they did,
>> similar to Comair 5191. Blaming the pilots does not "un-crash" this
>> aircraft. There are system issues to be corrected here. I'm glad they
>> survived.
>
>Blame has to be placed somewhere, or shared, right? If blame is not
>placed, it starts to give the impression that no one is at fault, at
>least not the pilots.
>
>Let's look at it another way. Let us suppose that no warnings existed
>at all in the B-2 Spirit, that everything looked normal right before
>ejection. There would be a thorough investigation, meeting rooms
>filled with technologists and top brass, and once the cause were
>found, someone would suggest...
>
>"How hard is it to add a warning light so that if moisture clogs the
>system, the computer at least tells the pilots that something is
>wrong? Can you do that?" They engineers would probably say yes.
>"Would you pilots find that useful?" Again, the pilots would probably
>say yes.
>
>> For a very good read on time compressed decision making and concurrent
>> task management, get a copy of "The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking
>> Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents" by Dismukes, Berman
>> and Loukopouloshttp://www.amazon.com/Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Airline-Accidents/d...
>>
>> Fly Smart
>
>By managing risk better?
>
>One way to look at is...if they had aborted, the plane would still be
>here, and some engineer would have figured out the error in true vs
>indicated speed, and noted that pilots would have attempted rotation
>at a speed that might have resulted in a crash, and pilots would have
>been lauded for their attitude toward risk management...in the $1.4
>billion aircraft.
>
>Also, given that it's a B-2, and not a $40,000 Tomahawk, I would think
>one would have a slightly higher expectation of pilot's attitude
>toward risk management...or not.
>
>If it seems that I am nit-picking at this topic, I am. The more I
>read, the more I am discovering that vast majority of crashes, if one
>looks only at the facts, has to do with some erroneous decision that
>human made somewhere, not the machine itself. A year ago, before I
>started all this, I would have expected it to be entirely the other
>way around, the idea being that, the pilot would know that if they do
>something really stupid, death is a possibility. Some of the errors
>that pilots make are....ahem...plane silly.
>
>Making mistakes is ok, as no one is perfect. The problem, I think,
>becomes systemic when the community as a whole develops tendency to
>reject blame. That is what I, a student pilot, see each time I open a
>magazine, or read online material.
>
>-Le Chaud Lapin-
************************************************

Le Chaud Lapin

Some comments.

High speed aborts on Runway many times cause bird to go off end and
burn. If stopped on R/W the brakes probably catch fire from the heat
generated in the brakes in the abort. Even with antiskid brakes the
tires would probably be blown in the abort and the magnisum wheels
burn very good. These brake fires has led to loss of the aircraft
after abort.

The warning light was not the "fire warning" light??? as I understand.
It just showed a system problem. If no fire, I probably would have
continued the take off as the lessor of two evils.

Don't know when light came on. If just after breaking ground then
trying to fly was the correct option.

Some may disagree with me but we all have opinions and I wasn't in the
cockpit on take off when decision to continue was made.

You'all have a nice day.

Big John

[Big John]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:43:33 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>I only had to consider ejection seriously once while over Alaska when we got
>a master caution. After reading the book, we discussed ejection parameters
>and the ejection call. The most important thing was that we were told to
>never land in a stream or river, since even with the LPU the silt would fill
>the flight suit and drag you under, not to mention that there was still
>around three feet of ice even in May.
>
>We dropped our live Mk 84's in a single pass over the range, and then flew
>back to an uneventful landing, with the equipment following. Never did find
>out what caused the master caution/flaps light to come on. Even in the late
>spring I wasn't too keen about spending a whole lot of time outdoors in AK
>without more gear than what came in the seat pan.
>
>Still, the ACES II is a lot more advanced than the old Martin Bakers.
>************************************************** **********

Viperdoc

My seat pre-dated even the Martin Baker.

Sounds like you did right (What was ur bird?). Most emergencies give
you time to make an evaluation of the situation before taking any
serious action.

With that said I had a good friend (ANG Sq Commander)lose and engine
(fire) in a F-89 and was given priority to land. When on final an
idiot took the runway without clearance and my friend went around and
stayed in pattern. On downwind leg the bird blew up and both he and
his RO were killed.

I hate to keep telling these stories about the accidents I am aware of
and was close to. Ruins my day to bring those memories of yore back
:o(

A nice day.

Big John

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-06-08, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
> (to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. But if
> you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
> takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???

But we don't know that, we don't even know when the master caution
illuminated (at least, nothing I've read says when it illuminated). We
know very few facts at this stage and it's all speculation.

As an example, if the master caution illuminates *after* V1 has been
reached you do not abort; at this stage you're committed.

> Blame has to be placed somewhere, or shared, right? If blame is not
> placed, it starts to give the impression that no one is at fault, at
> least not the pilots.

But we don't know that yet. The crash has to be investigated to find out
who or what was at fault, and like most aviation crashes there will be
an entire accident chain rather than one single screwup that had the
results they did. Simply pointing fingers at people before the
investigation has turned up the facts is unhelpful and unproductive.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:37:05 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>we don't even know when the master caution
>illuminated (at least

Actually, there is mention of the computer warning at about the two
minute point in the narration of the video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw&fmt=18

"... were warned by a Master Caution Light and Flight Control
Systems Caution 19 seconds after brake release, while on takeoff
roll. They observed air-data faults, but those faults resolved
themselves within six seconds, and the caution was rescinded at
approximately 120 knots indicated. But the airspeed numbers were
wrong. When the pilots thought they had 158 knots, they actually
had 124. With the false airspeed readings and faulty system that
was exaggerating their control inputs, the pilots never stood a
chance. ... "

The main USAF B-2 page:
http://www.acc.af.mil/accspecialreports/b-2accidentinvestigationboard.asp

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080605-056.pdf
Executive Summary Aircraft Accident Investigation B-2A, T/N
89-0127
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
23 February 2008



Page six of this document is obviously the source of the commentary in
the video:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080605-054.pdf
Summary Of Facts

At the bottom of page 17 it states:

Within the B-2 community a defacto decision speed of 100 KIAS is
utilized to determine whether to abort a takeoff or to continue
into the air with an error, fault, or failure. In addition B-2
pilots distinguish between serious concerns meriting an aggressive
decision to abort a takeoff presented by a red Master Warning
light, and yellow Master Caution lights that are "analyzed" prior
to taking action. Since the yellow Master Caution, rather than a
red Master Warning, occurred after accelerating past 100 KIAS, the
MC did not reflexively initiate an abort....



Here's the USAF opinion on not aborting the takeoff:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080605-058.pdf
Statement Of Opinion

MP1 asked Mishap Pilot 2 (MP2) for a takeoff/abort decision. At
approximately 120 KIAS, MP2 called "continue takeoff" as all
caution indications had cleared and the MA was above the briefed
100 KIAS "decision speed." Decision speed is the speed at which
pilots decide to continue the takeoff or abort. ...


Video: Stealth Bomber Crashes
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/video-stealth-b.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/06/crash.ap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-06-08, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
>> (to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. But if
>> you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
>> takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???
>
> But we don't know that, we don't even know when the master caution
> illuminated (at least, nothing I've read says when it illuminated). We
> know very few facts at this stage and it's all speculation.
>
> As an example, if the master caution illuminates *after* V1 has been
> reached you do not abort; at this stage you're committed.

Well, in addition to that we don't even know what the master caution meant
in this instance. It could just mean that one of a number of redundant
systems is malfunctioning. In most modern airplanes, bull**** items on the
master caution system are surpressed during the takeoff roll, however, that
may not be the case in the military, where they may prioritise things
differently because of a different operating environment, i.e. people
shooting at you. They also don't fly much but spend a great deal of time in
the sim, so they may have a different POV on that whole aborted takeoff
thing anyway. Most of the ex-mil guys I fly with didn't fly bombers, or if
they did they were anteeks, so I don't know anyone I can ask, but even if I
knew one he'd only be able to pass minimal info anyway. "Yep, goes real
fast, over 300 knots"


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, in addition to that we don't even know what the master caution meant
> in this instance. It could just mean that one of a number of redundant
> systems is malfunctioning. In most modern airplanes, bull**** items on the
> master caution system are surpressed during the takeoff roll, however,
> that
> may not be the case in the military, where they may prioritise things
> differently because of a different operating environment, i.e. people
> shooting at you. They also don't fly much but spend a great deal of time
> in
> the sim, so they may have a different POV on that whole aborted takeoff
> thing anyway. Most of the ex-mil guys I fly with didn't fly bombers, or if
> they did they were anteeks, so I don't know anyone I can ask, but even if
> I
> knew one he'd only be able to pass minimal info anyway. "Yep, goes real
> fast, over 300 knots"
>
>
> Bertie

Well then, just make up an answer as usual.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:44:02 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>I have seen at least one guy with a compression fracture after an ejection.

Is it common for ejection injuries to result in permanent disability?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Well, in addition to that we don't even know what the master caution
>> meant in this instance. It could just mean that one of a number of
>> redundant systems is malfunctioning. In most modern airplanes,
>> bull**** items on the master caution system are surpressed during the
>> takeoff roll, however, that
>> may not be the case in the military, where they may prioritise things
>> differently because of a different operating environment, i.e. people
>> shooting at you. They also don't fly much but spend a great deal of
>> time in
>> the sim, so they may have a different POV on that whole aborted
>> takeoff thing anyway. Most of the ex-mil guys I fly with didn't fly
>> bombers, or if they did they were anteeks, so I don't know anyone I
>> can ask, but even if I
>> knew one he'd only be able to pass minimal info anyway. "Yep, goes
>> real fast, over 300 knots"
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well then, just make up an answer as usual.
>

Nope.


Bertie

[Clark[_2_]]

On Jun 8, 10:32*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 9:51*am, Clark > wrote:
>
> > Most SOPs I am familiar with for heavy aircraft tell you to keep
> > flying if a Master Caution illuminates on takeoff AFTER 80-100 knots.
> > After 80-100 knots, hi speed aborts are done for Fires, Engine
> > Failures, Windshear and if the PIC believes the airplane will not
> > fly.
>
> Hmm....I think this sends the wrong signal to aspiring pilots (no pun
> intended).
>
> When I was reading the Risk Management section of my Jeppesen book, it
> specifically states that one of the major reasons that accidents
> happens is that pilots choose to ignore the warning signs.
>
> If you are saying that a high-speed abort would have done more damage
> (to the aircraft) than to continue to fly, that's one thing. *But if
> you are saying that it is ok for $1.4 billion machine to continue to
> takeoff simple becase it is more convenient than aborting...???
>
That is exactly the point. The pilots had a Caution, not a Warning.
They did not ignore it but prioritized that Aviating was the primary
task at hand, vs digging out a checklist rolling down the runway for a
Yellow Caution light. This was an ambiguous cue when you look back at
it with 20/20 hindsight. If they had decided in the design process
that this could cause loss of life and/or property, it would have been
a big, fat red Warning light with associated non-normal procedures and
Warning notes. If you do some rooting around on google you will find
the ends of runways littered with the hulls of airplanes that have
aborted at high speed and high weight.


> I am sure that if I were to go to my flight instructor, and tell him
> that, from now on, if any warning lights come on in his sub-$400,000
> aircraft, I will use my own judgement during an abortable take off to
> decide whether the warning is serious enough to abort, he'd shriek.


Warning yes, Caution no. In a multi-engine aircraft, say, 757 on short
runway with a engine fire light, better to go flying and fight fire
airborne with suppression system than end up at bottom of ravine
broken in two. Every aircraft plus every takeoff is diffeent, your
instructor will help build your
Assessment=Behavior=Consequence=Decision skills. Systems do not always
fail in ways that designers envisioned. i had a hydraulic Caution
light on a Huey once. The problem wasactually with the Master Caution
and Warning system (erroneous indication), not the Hydraulics system.
I had enough systems knowledge and supporting information to make an
assessment, which was to land normally. The emrgency checklist would
have had me doing a high-speed run-on landing, not so difficult but I
would have toasted the skids.
Your instructor will also spend some time going over the difference
between Notes, Cautions and Warnings. Plus the fact that you can
deviate from procedures if, in your estimation as Pilot In Command,
the situation warrants. That's also in the US FARs.
>
> > This crew had no idications to warrant an abort. After a certain
> > threshold they are biased to continue and that is what they did,
> > similar to Comair 5191. Blaming the pilots does not "un-crash" this
> > aircraft. There are system issues to be corrected here. I'm glad they
> > survived.
>
> Blame has to be placed somewhere, or shared, right? If blame is not
> placed, it starts to give the impression that no one is at fault, at
> least not the pilots.

There are deficiencies in the system that can be improved. Blame is a
culture issue and litigous society, and it makes some people feel
better. Things I would look at here are why did ejection seats injure
crew and the fact that moisture in the system started this whole
sequence. The crew were the ufortunate ones to discover the
deficiency. And is in most cases through history, the messenger gets
shot.
>
> Let's look at it another way. *Let us suppose that no warnings existed
> at all in the B-2 Spirit, that everything looked normal right before
> ejection. There would be a thorough investigation, meeting rooms
> filled with technologists and top brass, and once the cause were
> found, someone would suggest...
>
> "How hard is it to add a warning light so that if moisture clogs the
> system, the computer at least tells the pilots that something is
> wrong? *Can you do that?" They engineers would probably say yes.
> "Would you pilots find that useful?" Again, the pilots would probably
> say yes.
>
> > For a very good read on time compressed decision making and concurrent
> > task management, get a copy of "The Limits of Expertise: Rethinking
> > Pilot Error and the Causes of Airline Accidents" by Dismukes, Berman
> > and Loukopouloshttp://www.amazon.com/Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Airline-Accidents/d...
>
> > Fly Smart
>
> By managing risk better?
>
> One way to look at is...if they had aborted, the plane would still be
> here, and some engineer would have figured out the error in true vs
> indicated speed, and noted that pilots would have attempted rotation
> at a speed that might have resulted in a crash, and pilots would have
> been lauded for their attitude toward risk management...in the $1.4
> billion aircraft.

The pilots had all of the clues needed to rotate, just as they had
done thousands of times.
>
> Also, given that it's a B-2, and not a $40,000 Tomahawk, I would think
> one would have a slightly higher expectation of pilot's attitude
> toward risk management...or not.
>
> If it seems that I am nit-picking at this topic, I am. *The more I
> read, the more I am discovering that vast majority of crashes, if one
> looks only at the facts, has to do with some erroneous decision that
> human made somewhere, not the machine itself. *A year ago, before I
> started all this, I would have expected it to be entirely the other
> way around, the idea being that, the pilot would know that if they do
> something really stupid, death is a possibility. Some of the errors
> that pilots make are....ahem...plane silly.

Humans design airplanes and sensors. Is that a Human Factor or
Material Factor. Trick question. All mishaps are caused by Human
Factors.
>
> Making mistakes is ok, as no one is perfect. The problem, I think,
> becomes systemic when the community as a whole develops tendency to
> reject blame. That is what I, a student pilot, see each time I open a
> magazine, or read online material.

So maybe there is something behind that, if you are seeing it
everywhere? WE are trying o fix things and make families happy, not
make lawyers happy
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

[Jonathan Hartley]

Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
you why.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
"Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
probation for writing:

>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>you why.
>

The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
provide lift.

[ah]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>you why.
>>
>
> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
> provide lift.

Cranberry juice?
--
/\_/|
=a-h=

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
ah > got double secret probation for writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>
>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>you why.
>>>
>>
>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>> provide lift.
>
>Cranberry juice?

Dirt

[Steve Hix]

In article .com>,
ah > wrote:

> Aratzio wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> > "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
> > probation for writing:
> >
> >>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can
> >>tell
> >>you why.
> >>
> >
> > The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
> > provide lift.
>
> Cranberry juice?

Guam.

[Jonathan Hartley]

The B2 crash started with a clogged pitot tube, which led to computer error
and a stall. If you watch the video closely, you can detect the stall
situation. More detail?

"Jonathan Hartley" > wrote in message
.. .
> Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can
> tell you why.
>

[John Godwin]

Aratzio > wrote in
:

> Dirt

Cumulogranite cloud

--

[ah]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>> probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>you why.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>> provide lift.
>>
>>Cranberry juice?
>
> Dirt

That tears it.
--
ah

[ah]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article .com>,
> ah > wrote:
>
>> Aratzio wrote:
>> > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> > "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>> > probation for writing:
>> >
>> >>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can
>> >>tell
>> >>you why.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>> > provide lift.
>>
>> Cranberry juice?
>
> Guam.

Lies!
--
ah

[ah]

Jonathan Hartley wrote:
> The B2 crash started with a clogged pitot tube, which led to computer error
> and a stall. If you watch the video closely, you can detect the stall
> situation. More detail?
>
> "Jonathan Hartley" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can
>> tell you why.
>>
>
>

No; thanks.
--
ah

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
double secret probation for writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>you why.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>> provide lift.
>>>
>>>Cranberry juice?
>>
>> Dirt
>
>That tears it.

If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.

[ah]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
> double secret probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>
>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>
>>> Dirt
>>
>>That tears it.
>
> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.

Cost-cutting is for the birds.
--
ah

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 21:07:00 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article .com>,
> ah > wrote:
>
>> Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>> probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can
>>>>tell
>>>>you why.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>> provide lift.
>>
>> Cranberry juice?
>
> Guam.

Wrigley's?
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
double secret probation for writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>> double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>
>>>> Dirt
>>>
>>>That tears it.
>>
>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>
>Cost-cutting is for the birds.

Billion dollar baby.

[ah]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
> double secret probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dirt
>>>>
>>>>That tears it.
>>>
>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>
>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>
> Billion dollar baby.

Trillion is the new billion.
--
ah

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
ah > got double secret probation for writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>> double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>
>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>
>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>
>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>
>> Billion dollar baby.
>
>Trillion is the new billion.

I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Jonathan Hartley" > wrote in
:

> The B2 crash started with a clogged pitot tube, which led to computer
> error and a stall. If you watch the video closely, you can detect the
> stall situation. More detail?


Bull****

They don;'t have pitot tubes on a B2



Bertie

[ah]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>>
>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>>
>>> Billion dollar baby.
>>
>>Trillion is the new billion.
>
> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.

Suh-weet!

So, when do you think can you start lending?
--
ah

[ah]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Jonathan Hartley" > wrote in
> :
>
>> The B2 crash started with a clogged pitot tube, which led to computer
>> error and a stall. If you watch the video closely, you can detect the
>> stall situation. More detail?
>
>
> Bull****
>
> They don;'t have pitot tubes on a B2

PYP!
--
ah

[Aratzio]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:54:58 -0500, in the land of
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
double secret probation for writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>>>
>>>> Billion dollar baby.
>>>
>>>Trillion is the new billion.
>>
>> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.
>
>Suh-weet!
>
>So, when do you think can you start lending?

Lending? I need to pay the bonuses to the officers first.

[ah]

Aratzio wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:54:58 -0500, in the land of
> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
> double secret probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Billion dollar baby.
>>>>
>>>>Trillion is the new billion.
>>>
>>> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.
>>
>>Suh-weet!
>>
>>So, when do you think can you start lending?
>
> Lending? I need to pay the bonuses to the officers first.

But . . . what about the profits?
--
ah

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:23:57 -0500, in the land of
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
double secret probation for writing:

>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:54:58 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>> double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Billion dollar baby.
>>>>>
>>>>>Trillion is the new billion.
>>>>
>>>> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.
>>>
>>>Suh-weet!
>>>
>>>So, when do you think can you start lending?
>>
>> Lending? I need to pay the bonuses to the officers first.
>
>But . . . what about the profits?

What profits? We need to pay bonuses first.

[Steve Hix]

In article .com>,
ah > wrote:

> Aratzio wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:54:58 -0500, in the land of
> > alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
> > double secret probation for writing:
> >
> >>Aratzio wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
> >>>
> >>>>Aratzio wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
> >>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
> >>>>> double secret probation for writing:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
> >>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
> >>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of
> >>>>>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of
> >>>>>>>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
> >>>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>I can tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>you why.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dirt
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>That tears it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Billion dollar baby.
> >>>>
> >>>>Trillion is the new billion.
> >>>
> >>> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.
> >>
> >>Suh-weet!
> >>
> >>So, when do you think can you start lending?
> >
> > Lending? I need to pay the bonuses to the officers first.
>
> But . . . what about the profits?

They're doing just fine.

They saw it all coming and got out of the market at its peak.

[metro-golden-meower]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:44:53 -0800, Aratzio >
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:23:57 -0500, in the land of
>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>double secret probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:54:58 -0500, in the land of
>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Billion dollar baby.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Trillion is the new billion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.
>>>>
>>>>Suh-weet!
>>>>
>>>>So, when do you think can you start lending?
>>>
>>> Lending? I need to pay the bonuses to the officers first.
>>
>>But . . . what about the profits?
>
>What profits? We need to pay bonuses first.

don't you watch the news? get a job at a bank. those ****heads get a
huge arsed bonuse no matter how ****ed the banking system is.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:43:06 +0000, in the land of
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, metro-golden-meower
> got double secret probation for
writing:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:44:53 -0800, Aratzio >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:23:57 -0500, in the land of
>>alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:54:58 -0500, in the land of
>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46:50 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:18:21 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:19:09 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>>>>> alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, ah > got
>>>>>>>>>> double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:59:03 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ah > got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:29:14 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jonathan Hartley" > got double secret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probation for writing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are we still interested in knowing why the plane crashed? If so, I can tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you why.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The medium through which it was attempting to fly was too thick to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide lift.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Cranberry juice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirt
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That tears it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it were a regular metal plane it would have crumpled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Cost-cutting is for the birds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Billion dollar baby.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Trillion is the new billion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've put in my paperwork to be a bank.
>>>>>
>>>>>Suh-weet!
>>>>>
>>>>>So, when do you think can you start lending?
>>>>
>>>> Lending? I need to pay the bonuses to the officers first.
>>>
>>>But . . . what about the profits?
>>
>>What profits? We need to pay bonuses first.
>
>don't you watch the news? get a job at a bank. those ****heads get a
>huge arsed bonuse no matter how ****ed the banking system is.

I am a bank.